Supreme Court's Rulings on PROP 8 and DOMA

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

Is it considered "pro-gay marriage" if, like I said, I believe the government should not consider the word "marriage" at all and only consider the civil nature of the relationship, i.e., "married" heterosexual couples would be viewed as "civilly joined" the exact same way as a gay couple?

But at the end of the day, the terminology is far less important than the civil rights issues at the center of the discussion. I honestly could not care less what people call their relationship, their significant others or any of that. That's missing the forest for the trees and distracting from the substantive debate.

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

I'm not sure why you believe marriage was a strictly religious based union in the first place, I realise there's a fair amount of discrepancy in regards to when exactly the term was first used but no historians have proved it was specifically created by one of the monotheist religions.

I'm not sure why you believe marriage was a strictly religious based union in the first place, I realise there's a fair amount of discrepancy in regards to when exactly the term was first used but no historians have proved it was specifically created by one of the monotheist religions.

Show me a historic culture or civilization that conducted marriages in a non-religious setting. I'll wait...

Show me a historic culture or civilization that conducted marriages in a non-religious setting. I'll wait...

I don't think that that matters at this point. The anti-gay marriage crowd weren't crying about non-religious weddings for decades until 2 men or two women or men decided they wanted in. It just comes off as hatred and bigotry at this point.

Those arguing about 'the definition' of marriage can f--- right off too. Divorce, adultery and spousal/child abuses do far more to harm to 'marriage' than Adam and Ben or Liz and Debbie walking down the aisle together.

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

Just because you go to a church to worship an invisible aspect doesn't mean you should get a special term for your commitment to your partner in life. Yeah the civil aspects are the true benefit and in Canada you get those as soon as you live together for 6 months and you're considered 'common law' but seriously people need to get the f--- over it. Then again when it comes down to church I also think people just need to get the f--- out....

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

I have no right to tell religions what they should believe, and they have no right to tell me what words I can or can't use. Refusing to call it "marriage" is simply caving to the prejudices of a group who believes their practices are above those of others.

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

Your argument? Suggestion? Whatever is ridiculous.
I am embarrassed for you.
I suspect that even those who agree with you are even embarrassed by your asinine statements.

So to those of you who are pro-gay marriage, would your opinions about this change if the legal and financial benefits were taken out of this marriage and it went back to being strictly a religious-based union? Would having civil unions that provide the current benefits that marriage provides solve the problem? Or is this more a case of principle, where someone wants something because they feel that they've been unfairly excluded from it and resolution will never occur until gays can call themselves "married" and officially refer to themselves as "husband" and/or "wife" because the "breeders" have been able to for all these years?

I love this forum. Takes less than 2 pages for a discussion of differing opinions to break down to a dog pile as soon as a minority viewpoint is expressed. The majority of you have the ability to have a rational debate and civil disagreement that amazes me.

I love this forum. Takes less than 2 pages for a discussion of differing opinions to break down to a dog pile as soon as a minority viewpoint is expressed. The majority of you have the ability to have a rational debate and civil disagreement that amazes me.

It's not that you have a differing opinion that bothers us... It's that we have no clear idea of what your opinion was.
I'm not really sure if you ever answered my question, or just simply talked about whether marriage was a religious institution or a legal document. You kinda went all over the place.

I love this forum. Takes less than 2 pages for a discussion of differing opinions to break down to a dog pile as soon as a minority viewpoint is expressed. The majority of you have the ability to have a rational debate and civil disagreement that amazes me.

Funny how you bemoan the lack of ability to have a rational debate while belittling those who disagree with you instead of their positions.

Are you referring to the question that I clearly stated that I didn't get and you neglected to explain further?

Was this the question regarding non religious marriage? If so, I'm not sure how else I can explain it you asked for evidence of a historic culture that practiced non religious marriage, I gave you one.

Are you referring to the question that I clearly stated that I didn't get and you neglected to explain further?

I didn't feel like I had to explain it further. My question was whether or not you thought the SCOTUS would scrap Prop 8 and or DOMA. I used separation of church and state in the context just to be a little bit of a smartass, and you over analyzed everything.

what about religious institutes that do accept and marry gay people, should those marriages be recognized and not ones done by atheist? and what about atheist and other non big 3 religions that preform marriage, or religions that recognize polygamy? Personally I think the government should stay out of marriage period but I know that it is impossible at this point as marriage is tied to to many laws in this country.

what about religious institutes that do accept and marry gay people, should those marriages be recognized and not ones done by atheist? and what about atheist and other non big 3 religions that preform marriage, or religions that recognize polygamy? Personally I think the government should stay out of marriage period but I know that it is impossible at this point as marriage is tied to to many laws in this country.

As inept as government is they are still a far more credible institution than any religion...